Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Utilizing data from the Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study 2012/2017 dataset, this study examined disability self-identification during the first 3 years of postsecondary education in a nationally representative sample of students in the United States. Findings revealed that nearly 10% of undergraduate students enrolling in higher education identified as having a disability status at some point during the first 3 years of their postsecondary coursework. Students who identified as having a disability tended to be older and less likely to be dependents, more likely to be enrolled full-time, living on campus, and less likely to perceive a positive sense of belonging within their campus environment.

Keywords

disability studies higher education postsecondary education survey research disability self-identification postsecondary student

According to the United States Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics ([NCES], 2023a), 20.5% of undergraduate students and 11.9% of postbaccalaureate students report having a disability. While there has always been a documented presence of disabled students in the higher education environment, this student group’s enrollment within the postsecondary setting has increased over time (Baker et al., 2012; NCES, 2023b). Despite the growing documentation of disabled students enrolling in postsecondary education, there are challenges in accurately gauging student disability rates in the higher education environment, as many disabled students may choose not to formally disclose their disability status with their institution (NCES, 2022b) or may informally self-identify their disability with peers or other campus community members (Grimes et al., 2019). Self-identifying a disability may occur in different contexts and with different stakeholders (Lindsay et al., 2018), with Meeks et al. (2021) noting that students may self-identify a disability in anonymous surveys but choose not to formally disclose a disability at their postsecondary institution. Possessing a disability does not equate to choosing to self-identify a disability or formally disclosing to seek disability support services (Smith et al., 2021).

Unlike the K-12 environment where teachers, parents, and advocates request disability support services on a student’s behalf, students enrolled in higher education programs must self-disclose their disability status with their institution’s disability resource office to receive accommodations. Research continues to highlight that disabled students enrolled in postsecondary coursework have a decreased chance of successfully transitioning to and persisting within the higher education setting (Elias & White, 2018; Moriña, 2017; Newman et al., 2019, 2021) and that this student group frequently experiences delayed time to degree completion and decreased graduation rates (Knight et al., 2018; Mader & Butrymowicz, 2017). Receiving accommodations can aid their success in higher education (Kranke et al., 2013); however, numerous reasons—including uncertainty with the disclosure process and perceived stigma—may hinder a student from accessing available disability support services. While accommodations and related disability services from an institution’s disability resource office provide important resources and support for disabled students, various academic, environmental, or social factors can create additional obstacles in this student group’s overall success within their campus community (Akin & Huang, 2019; Grimes, 2020; Kimball et al., 2016; Riddell & Weedon, 2014). There is no required time when a student must self-identify as having a disability and disclose their disability status with their postsecondary institution.

Although related, there is a significant distinction between self-identification and formal disclosure of one’s disability. When an individual self-identifies a disability in the higher education environment, they are voluntarily sharing their disability status with someone else without the intention to formally document this disability with their institution’s disability resource office or request accommodations. Disclosing a disability, however, is when the student shares their disability status with their institution’s disability resource office to request and receive disability support services. While disclosing a disability in higher education only must occur once to formally document their status within the institution, self-identification can occur at different times throughout a student’s higher education journey (Aquino & Bittinger, 2019). Self-identifying one’s disability, formally disclosing a disability with a student’s institution, and/or using accommodations during one or several semesters can complicate the consistent capturing of student disability rates in the higher education environment, thus convoluting how the educational community understands the importance and relevance of student disability within the postsecondary setting (Kimball et al., 2016; Peña, 2014). To better explore student disability in higher education, it is necessary to gauge the national profile of students who self-identify as having a disability while enrolled in postsecondary education. The purpose of this study, then, is to examine disability self-identification during the first 3 years of postsecondary education in a nationally representative sample of students in the United States. As such, the research questions that guided this study include the following:

What percentage of undergraduate students self-identify a disability, and does self-identification change over time?

What are the descriptive differences in student and institution-related characteristics based on variation in disability self-identification?

To what extent do student and institution-related characteristics account for varying disability self-identification statuses?

Controlling for student and institution-related characteristics, to what extent do varying disability self-identification statuses account for students’ first to second year persistence or degree attainment within the higher education environment?

Please note that this article uses identity-first language; however, the authors recognize that some members of the disability community prefer person-first language. To be clear, we respect an individual’s right to identify using the language that they prefer.

Literature Review

As of the 2015–2016 academic year, approximately one in five undergraduate students and over one in 10 postbaccalaureate students formally self-identified their disability status (NCES, 2023a). However, there may be a much larger group of students with a disability who choose not to register their disability status with their institution’s disability resource office (Aquino & Bittinger, 2019; Ozelie et al., 2019). For example, in one study, nearly two-thirds of students who received special education in high school did not disclose their disability once they reached college (Newman & Madaus, 2015). Additionally, according to the NCES (2022b), the majority of disabled students completing their postsecondary education choose not to inform their institution of their disability status. It is then important to further explore students who self-identify a disability at one or several points within their higher education experience to better understand this student group, their institution-related choices and behavior, and their persistence and degree attainment within the postsecondary setting.

Students requiring disability support services within the higher education environment are responsible for notifying the institution when they require accommodations. Self-disclosing a disability is a voluntary action, and until the student formally discloses their disability status, their postsecondary institution is not required to provide any disability support services, including classroom accommodations (United States Department of Education, 2017). Research notes numerous factors to not formally disclose one’s disability status to their institution, including potential uncertainty with seeking out appropriate information and support for requesting and obtaining institutional disability support services, as well as the stigma surrounding disability within the campus setting (Abreu et al., 2017; Grimes et al., 2020). While a student may feel more comfortable choosing not to share their disability status, this decision may negatively affect their overall success within the higher education environment, creating an increased risk for underperformance and attrition (Kranke et al., 2013). Related, an ableist environment creates a discriminatory setting that limits the inclusivity and accessibility of disabled individuals (Linton, 1998). Numerous instances of ableism occur within the higher education setting (Nachman, 2023; Nachman & Brown, 2022). Specific to this study, due to the potentially stigmatized component of one’s identity, the individual may choose to self-identify their disability only at certain times or with certain individuals. The disabled student may feel their disability is not welcomed in their campus environment and, therefore, may identify at different points in their postsecondary careers to different campus community members and for different reasons. The following section highlights key literature on student characteristics, institution-related choices and behavior including the role of sense of belonging, and persistence and degree attainment within the higher education setting, with a focus on disabled postsecondary students.

Student Characteristics

Research indicates that various student factors, including a student’s age (e.g., Ellis, 2019), as well as race and ethnicity (e.g., Espinosa et al., 2019), may contribute to the student’s overall success in the postsecondary setting. If a student is from a low-income family or identifies as a first-generation college student, their success in their postsecondary studies may be hindered due to a lack of preparation or college readiness resources (Roksa & Kinsley, 2019; Trevino & DeFreitas, 2014). A student’s participation in the military may also create challenges in a successful transition into and within the campus environment due to potential “stereotypes and entering an unstructured college setting” (Kirchner, 2015, p. 116). Additionally, a student’s disability may introduce unique challenges that complicate their overall success within the higher education environment, including difficulties with accessibility, navigating accommodations, and managing the stigma associated with disability (Los Santos et al., 2019). These challenges can intersect with other factors, such as financial stress, further impacting academic performance and social integration. Moreover, an individual’s various characteristics—including race, gender, socioeconomic background, and disability status— may shape their engagement with and responses to their educational environment, influencing their ability to access resources, form meaningful connections, and achieve academic goals (Carbado et al., 2013).

Institution-Related Characteristics

A student’s institutional choice and institution-going behavior may also be associated with their success in the postsecondary setting (Chen, 2012; Goldrick-Rab, 2010; Kahu & Nelson, 2018). Institution-going behaviors like Pell Grant eligibility, living on campus, as well as perceiving their belonging within the campus environment, can also be related to a student’s postsecondary success (Eng & Matsudaira, 2021; Kahu & Nelson, 2018; Sparkman et al., 2012; Wilke et al., 2019). The type of higher education institution a student enrolls in also contributes to their experience and success (Milsom & Sackett, 2018; Umbach et al., 2019). Specific to this paper, one’s disability—particularly the self-identification as having a disability at any point during a student’s higher education journey—may further complicate specific school-going behaviors, such as participation or social integration, due to systemic barriers, personal challenges, or stigmatization (Pearson & Boskovich, 2019; Parsons et al., 2021). Moreover, a student’s perceived sense of belonging plays a crucial role in fostering academic success and emotional well-being, serving as a protective factor against feelings of alienation or marginalization. This is especially critical for minoritised and at-risk students, as a strong sense of belonging can significantly enhance retention, engagement, and overall academic achievement (O’Keeffee, 2013; Vaccaro & Newman, 2022).

As noted by Collins et al. (2019), when a campus environment is not inclusive and accessible, obstacles to developing and maintaining a sense of belonging will occur. Additionally, differences in perceived sense of belonging within the higher education environment occur for students who do and do not self-identify a disability (Aquino et al., 2017). Instead, the campus community committed to a more supportive environment can allow students—including disabled students—to thrive (Brown & Broido, 2019; Vaccaro et al., 2015). Disabled students may choose to not self-identify at different points due to the potential stigmatization of student disability at their institution (Bialka et al., 2017; Dolmage, 2017).

Persistence and Degree Attainment

Many factors can influence a student’s ability to persist and graduate, including demographic, academic, and institution-related characteristics (Berzenski, 2021; Kalkbrenner et al., 2021; Millea et al., 2018; Price & Tovar, 2014). According to NCES (2022a), 64% of undergraduate students who are enrolled in a bachelor’s degree program at a 4-year institution completed that undergraduate degree within a span of 6 years. Persistence and graduation rates can vary by demographic and institution-related characteristics (Gardner, 2022; NCES, 2021). The National Center for Education Statistics (2022a) noted that the "six-year graduation rate was 63 percent at public institutions, 68 percent at private nonprofit institutions, and 29 percent at private for-profit institutions. The overall six-year graduation rate was 60 percent for males and 67 percent for females" (para. 2). For disabled students, persistence and graduation rates tend to be lower compared to their non-disabled peers, reflecting the additional hurdles they often face in navigating higher education systems. Furthermore, experiences related to their disability—such as managing fluctuating health conditions, advocating for their needs, or encountering bias from peers and faculty—may further complicate their ability to remain engaged and successfully complete their degree. These factors underscore the importance of inclusive practices aimed at improving equity and fostering success for disabled students (Koch et al., 2014; Kutscher & Tuckwiller, 2019; Newman et al., 2021).

Theoretical Framework

This project was guided by the Interactionist Model of Disability (Evans & Broido, 2011; Gordon et al., 2009) and the Disability Identity Integration Model (Gill, 1997). Both theoretical models address the roles of the individual and their environment and how the disabled individual participates and integrates within their surroundings. According to Evans et al. (2017), the Interactionist Model of Disability understands the concept of disability as the ongoing interaction between the individual, the individual’s disability, and the individual’s environment. This emerging model represents an integrated approach to disability as defined within one’s surroundings, creating a unique understanding of the potential location-based obstacles that occur for the individual due to one’s disability (Aylward, 2016; Howard, 2003; Williams et al., 2008). The Interactionist Model of Disability highlights that the role of the environment “can range from enabling to disabling, people can make more and less effective choices, and impairments can vary from minimal to significant” (Evans et al., 2017, p. 78). Additionally, as noted by (Sherwood & Kattari 2023) the interactionist perspective “sees disability as a complex web of stressors, strengths, and injustices within context” (p. 2). Specific to this study, the applied lens guides this research as it recognizes how, over time and within different contexts, the individual may change their overall acknowledgment and self-disclosure of their disability related to specific student characteristics and situations within the environment, such as full-time enrollment status, and eligibility and use of need funding, among others.

Related, the Disability Identity Integration Model (Gill, 1997) addresses the self-perceived understanding of one’s integration within a particular setting. The model includes four integration types that lend to the development of one’s disability identity: “(1) ‘Coming to feel we belong’ (integrating into society); (2) ‘coming home’ (integrating with the disability community); (3) ‘coming together’ (internally integrating our sameness and differentness); and (4) ‘coming out’ (integrating how we feel with how we present ourselves)” (Gill, 1997, p. 39). Additionally, as noted by Gill (1997), “In order to affirm the disability experience as a positive and important feature of our identities, people with disabilities have had to separate and individuate from a . . . culture that fears and devalues disability” (p. 44). Disabled students must not only understand their environment (and how they perceive their environment, valuing or not valuing the role of disability within the environment) but also grapple with how they perceive their integration within this environment. Moreover, this level of integration, as per the model, may or may not allow them to acknowledge their disability status as a postsecondary student. Castillo (2017) notes that “there are potential risks and rewards of a growth process, potential shifts in personal attachments, redefinition of self, and the restructuring of relationships” (p. 164). The interaction between the disabled student and their campus environment, as well as how the disabled student perceives their integration within their campus community, can significantly impact whether or not they choose to self-identify their disability, and to whom.

Methods

As previously shared, the research questions that guided this study include the following:

What percentage of undergraduate students self-identify a disability and does self-identification change over time?

What are the descriptive differences in student and institution-related characteristics based on variation in disability self-identification?

To what extent do student and institution-related characteristics account for varying disability self-identification statuses?

Data were drawn from the restricted use Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study 2012/2017 dataset (BPS:12/17; Bryan et al., 2019), a nationally representative sample of first-time beginning undergraduate students in the United States in fall 2012 (National Center for Education Statistics, n.d.). At this time, the 2012–2017 study is the most up-to-date iteration of this longitudinal research study. The base-year collection of the BPS:12/17 was taken from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:12), “a nationally representative sample survey of undergraduate and graduate students enrolled any time between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2012, in institutions eligible to participate in federal financial aid programs” (Radwin et al., 2013, p. 1). According to Bryan et al. (2019), the completeness of the BPS:12/17 data was due to the use of a “responsive design to increase response rates and reduce nonresponse bias during data collection” (p. iv), as well as how “participating institutions and several administrative data sources provided data” (p. iii). According to Parekh (2024), exploring disability through quantitative data “not only enables opportunities to explore systemic inequities, but also allows for greater exploration into the construction of disability through the relational intersection of race, gender, class, and so forth” (p. 414). While there may be limitations to explore disability through large public datasets (Bills & Mills, 2022), the critical use of quantitative analyses “to develop robust, inclusive, and actionable insights about college disabled students” (Cox & Nachman, 2020, p. 246) is key to further develop this research area.

Sample

The sample consisted of students who began postsecondary education in 2011–2012 for the first time. They were followed for additional data collection in 2014 and again in 2017. The original sample included about 35,540 students. This study focused on the first and second waves of data collection (2012 & 2014) and included students with a valid longitudinal weight for an analytic sample of 18,990. Students in the sample were, on average, 21 years old (SD = 6.51). Approximately 41.2% were male, 38.4% were from low-income families, 65.5% were first-generation college students, and over three-quarters (82.2%) of the sample’s primary language was English. Students were 5.58% American Indian or Alaska Native, 6.32% Asian, 19.01% Black, 20.75% Latina/o/x, 2.58 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 72.67% White. For their first year of higher education, 57.19% received Pell grants, 71.04% registered as full-time students, 27.38% lived on campus, 59.72% attended four-year institutions, and 47.71% were enrolled in public institutions.

Additionally, as this paper investigated disability self-identification at specific points during students’ higher education careers, 16.27% of students self-identified a disability at least one time over the first 3 years of their postsecondary education. Please note that self-identification of a disability was identified within the BPS:12/17 longitudinal study and while the student identified as having a disability through the survey, it does not necessarily mean that they shared this disability status with campus community members (e.g., faculty, administrators, peers). It also does not indicate whether or not they disclosed this disability at their postsecondary institution or that they actually received accommodations. See Table 1 for descriptive statistics for students in the sample.

Table 1

Sample Characteristics (N = 18,990)

	% Mean (SD)
Disability Status
Disability: Early Self-Identification	4.37
Disability: Late Self-Identification	5.16
Disability: Consistent Self-Identification	6.74
No Disability Self-Identification	83.73
Individual Student Characteristics
Age	21.10(6.51)
Dependency Status
Dependent Status	73.78
Independent Status	26.22
Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latina/o/x	20.75
First Generation Status	65.51
Gender
Male	41.23
Not Male	58.77
GPA	296.12(85.46)
Low Income Status	38.44
Military Experience	2.42
Primary Language Spoken: English	82.20
Race: American Indian or Alaska Native	5.58
Race: Asian	6.32
Race: Black	19.01
Race: Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	2.58
Race: White	72.67
U.S. Born	91.57
Institution-Related Characteristics
Four Year Institution	59.72
Full-Time Status	71.04
Lives On Campus	27.38
Pell Eligible	57.19
Perceived Sense of Belonging	76.41
Public Institution	47.71
Outcome Variable: Student Success
Did Not Persist or Attain Degree	24.55
Persisted	52.34
Attained Degree	23.09

Note. N = 18,990; sample size rounded to the nearest 10 as per IES restrictions; analyses weighted using wtb000 and bootstrap replicate weights; the BPS:12/17 GPA variable is standardized to a 4.00 point scale and multiplied by 100 for variable construction. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2012–2017 Beginning Postsecondary Student Study (BPS:12/17).

Measures

Variables included in this paper were taken from the base year (2012) and the first follow-up of the survey (2014). As previously noted, two theoretical models guided this study: the Interactionist Model of Disability (Evans & Broido, 2011) and the Disability Identity Integration Model (Gill, 1997). As both theoretical models examine the disabled individual and how the disabled individual participates and integrates within their surroundings, the predictor variables included were focused on student characteristics (e.g., age, self-identified disability) and institution-related characteristics, such as college setting choices and behavior (e.g., living on campus, perceived sense of belonging) and institutional setting (e.g., public versus private institutions)—all of which may contribute to the student experience within the postsecondary environment. The inclusion of the specific student characteristic variables and institution-related variables were based on extant literature.

Self-reported disability status

This paper explored the self-identification of one’s disability, as documented through the BPS:12/17 longitudinal study. All participants were asked in a survey in 2012 and again in 2014 to self-report if they had “some type of disability.” Self-identification of one’s disability was self-reported by the student at their first year of postsecondary education through the NPSAS:12 Interview and their third year of postsecondary education through the the BPS:12/14 Interview, respectively.Four disability self-identification categories were established based on the first and second survey time points: (1) no self-identified disability (student did not identify as having a disability in either first or second data collection); (2) early disability (student only identified as having a disability at the first data collection); (3) late disability (student only identified as having a disability at the second data collection); or (4) consistent self-identified disability (student identified as having a disability at both the first and second data collection).

Individual student characteristics

Data on individual student characteristics were taken from several sources, including NPSAS:12 interview, the 2012 Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA:12), NPSAS:12 student records, and the BPS:12/14 interviews. Although the student characteristics data came from multiple sources, the individual student characteristics were all reported by the individual student or their family (e.g., on the FAFSA application). The data sources included students’ age as of December 31, 2022, and gender only included male or female as potential responses. First-generation and low-income status were identified through a student’s eligibility for the federal TRIO program. The data sources for BPS:12/17 also included indicators for whether students were dependents of their parents and had military experience. In addition, data were collected on students’ race and ethnicity and whether or not their primary language was English. Race was collected first in their base-year student interview; if this information was unavailable at the time of the interview, base-year student records were used. Students could also indicate whether they were Hispanic and whether they were born in the United States. Students’ GPA was collected by the sampled first institution at the end of the student’s first year (2012), and if this data point was not available, the GPA was student-reported.

Institution-related characteristics

Data on institution-related characteristics, including institutional level and institutional control, was obtained from the 2011 data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS:11), NPSAS:12 Interview, and BPS:12/14 Interview. We included indicators for whether the students’ institution was public and whether it was a 4-year institution. Both institution variables were specific to the institution the student first attended in the 2011–2012 academic year and were reported by a representative of the institution. The data sources for BPS:12/17 also included indicators for whether students were enrolled full-time, lived on campus, and received a Pell Grant. Additionally, students reported whether they had a positive or not positive sense of belonging on campus at the end of their first year (2012). Sense of belonging was measured by student responses on whether they felt like a part of their institution.

Persistence and degree completion

Data on degree completion and persistence were included in one outcome variable with three categories (did not persist or obtain a degree, persisted, obtained degree). These data were drawn from the BPS:12/14 Interview, NPSAS:12 Student Records, NPSAS:12 Interview, among other data sources, including the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC) and National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS). While this research question was to gauge success (not attrition) between the first to second year, it was important to include both persistence and degree completion as success options, as students can complete some type of degree (e.g., certificate) during that time period.

Analysis

All analyses were conducted in Stata (Version16) and were weighted using the longitudinal weight and bootstrap replicate weights to account for attrition and to be nationally representative of the population (Bryan et al., 2019). To address Research Questions 1 and 2, weighted descriptive statistics were conducted to examine trends in student disability identification for the full sample and by specific student characteristics. Significance tests were conducted to assess whether there were statistically significant differences in self-identification of a disability based on student characteristics. To address Research Questions 3 and 4, weighted multinomial logistic regression analyses were conducted, and results were presented as relative risk ratios. It is important to note that a positive association is when a relative risk ratio is greater than one, and a negative association is when a relative risk ratio is less than one. All but one variable included in the research models had complete data. For the one variable with missing data—GPA—listwise deletion was used.

Positionality Statement

We recognize the importance of critically reflecting on our perspectives and experiences relating to this study. Our work focuses on examining disability self-identification among students during the first 3 years of postsecondary education in the United States, with the goal of uncovering patterns that can inform policy, practice, and support systems in higher education. We are committed to exploring and advancing equity and understanding in education, and thus believe that it is necessary to highlight how we are personally connected to this work as well.

One researcher in this study identifies as a person with a disability, which deeply informs their personal and professional commitment to this topic. Her lived experience fosters a nuanced understanding of the complexities surrounding disability self-identification and its impact on access to resources, community, and opportunity in educational settings. As a whole, this research team is equally dedicated to exploring trends in education that promote inclusivity and equity. Our collaborative approach is grounded in a shared commitment to amplifying underrepresented voices and ensuring research practices honor students’ diverse experiences. As such, our perspectives shape the research design, emphasizing sensitivity and inclusivity. We approach this work with a blend of lived experience and scholarly rigor, striving to present findings for supporting students with disabilities in higher education.

Results

As this paper examined the prevalence and change in disability self-identification during the first 3 years of postsecondary education, it was necessary to organize the different disability self-identification groups. The first sub-group was for students who never identified a disability in either the base year (2012) or first follow-up (2014), n = 15,900. The second sub-group, the early disability self-identification group, consisted of students who identified as having a disability in the base year but not in the first follow-up (n = 830). The third sub-group, the late disability self-identification group, consisted of students who identified as having a disability during the first follow-up but not in the base year (n = 980). The fourth sub-group, the consistent disability group, included students who identified as having a disability at the base year and first follow-up (n = 1,280). All reported sample sizes were rounded to the nearest 10, complying with our NCES-restricted data use agreement.

Findings: Research Question #1

When investigating the percentage of undergraduate students who identified as having a disability and whether self-identification changes over time (RQ1), 9.53% of students identified as having a disability at least once during the first 3 years of their postsecondary education, but only 6.74% identified their disability at several points over time. Of the students surveyed, 4.37% identified their disability status at the base year but did not identify as having a disability at the first follow-up. Additionally, 5.16% of students did not identify their disability status at the base year but did identify a disability at the first follow-up. As previously noted, 6.74% of students identified their disability at the base year and first follow-up. In all, 83.73% of students did not identify a disability at the base year or the first follow-up. See Table 1 for descriptive statistics for the full sample and Table 2 for descriptive statistics for each disability status.

Table 2

Differences in Student Characteristics Between Differing Disability Self-Identification Statuses (N = 18,990)

	No Self-Identified Disability (N = 15,900)	Early Disability Self-Identification (N = 830)	Late Disability Self-Identification (N = 980)	Consistent Disability Self-Identification (N = 1,280)
	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
Individual Student Characteristics
Age	20.86(6.15)^c	21.72(7.04)	21.97(7.75)	23.07(8.66)^c
Dependency Status	.76(.43)^ac	.66(.47)^a	.68(.47)	.60(.49)^c
Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latina/o/x	.21(.41)	.21(.40)	.21(.41)	.17(.38)
First Generation Status	.65(.48)	.70(.46)	.68(.47)	.69(.46)
GPA	299.09(83.95)^ac	279.86(90.15)^a	290.34(84.01)	274.16(96.87)^c
Low Income Status	.37(.48)^c	.47(.50)	.46(.50)	.51(.50)^c
Male	.41(.49)	.39(.49)	.40(.49)	.42(.49)
Military Experience	.02(.14)	.03(.18)	.05(.21)	.06(.23)
Primary Language Spoken: English	.82(.39)^c	.83(.38)	.83(.38)	.87(.34)^c
Race: American Indian or Alaska Native	.05(.22)^a	.09(.29)^ad	.06(.23)^d	.08(.27)
Race: Asian	.07(.25)^c	.06(.23)	.06(.23)	.04(.19)^c
Race: Black	.19(.39)	.20(.40)	.19(.39)	.20(.40)
Race: Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	.03(.16)^c	.03(.17)	.02(.13)	.02(.15)^c
Race: White	.72(.45)	.71(.45)	.75(.43)	.75(.43)
U.S. Born	.91(.28)	.93(.26)	.92(.28)	.95(.23)
Institution-Related Characteristics
Four Year Institution	.60(.49)	.56(.50)	.57(.50)	.57(.49)
Full Time Enrollment	.72(.45)^ac	.64(.48)^a	.67(.47)	.63(.48)^c
Lives On Campus	.29(.45)^ac	.21(.41)^a	.23(.42)	.19(.39)^c
Pell Eligibility	.56(.50)^bc	.66(.47)	.65(.48)^b	.64(.48)^c
Perceived Sense of Belonging	.77(.42)^ac	.70(.46)^a	.74(.44)	.71(.45)^c
Public Institution	.48(.50)	.48(.50)	.47(.50)	.43(.50)

Note. N = 18,990; sample size rounded to the nearest 10 as per IES restrictions.

= significant difference between “No Self-Identified Disability” and “Early Disability Self-Identification”; ^b = significant difference between “No Self-Identified Disability” and “Late Disability Self-Identification;” ^c = significant difference between “No Self-Identified Disability” and “Consistent Disability Self-Identification; ^d = significant difference between “Early Disability Self-Identification” and “Late Disability Self-Identification;” ^e = significant difference between “Early Disability Self-Identification” and “Consistent Disability Self-Identification;” ^f = significant difference between “Late Disability Self-Identification” and “Consistent Disability Self-Identification.” Statistical significance is considered p < .05; analyses weighted using wtb000 and bootstrap replicate weights. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2012–2017 Beginning Postsecondary Student Study (BPS:12/17).

Findings: Research Question #2

When comparing student characteristics based on different disability self-identification statuses (RQ2), several statistically significant differences were noted (Table 2). Students who never self-identified a disability were younger (M = 20.86) than those who consistently self-identified with a disability (M = 23.07). Those who were dependents were more represented with students who did not self-identify a disability (M = 0.76) compared to early (M = 0.66) or consistent (M = 0.60) disability self-identification groups. Full-time students had representation in the no self-identified disability student group (M = 0.72) compared to early (M = 0.64) or consistent (M = 0.63) disability self-identification groups. Students who did not self-identify a disability had higher GPAs (M = 299.09) than early (M = 279.86) or consistent (M = 274.16) disability self-identification groups (Note: The BPS:12/17 GPA variable is standardized to a 4.00 point scale and multiplied by 100 for variable construction). Students living on campus had higher representation with students who did not self-identify a disability (M = 0.29) compared to early (M = 0.21) and consistent (M = 0.19) disability self-identification groups. Students with low income were less represented than students who did not self-identify a disability (M = 0.37) and more represented in the consistent disability self-identification group (M = 0.51). Students who were eligible for federal Pell grants were less represented with students who did not self-identify a disability (M = 0.56) and more represented in the late (M = 0.65) and consistent disability self-identification groups (M = 0.64). Students who did not self-identify a disability had a higher perceived sense of belonging (M = 0.77) than students in the early (M = 0.70) and consistent (M = 0.71) disability self-identification groups. Students whose primary language was English were less represented than students who did not self-identify a disability (M = 0.82) and more represented in the consistent disability self-identification group (M = 0.87). For students identifying as American Indian or Alaska Native, fewer students were represented with those who did not self-identify having a disability (M = 0.05) and the late (M = 0.06) self-identification group, and more were represented in the early disability self-identification group (M = 0.09). For students identifying as Asian, more students were represented who did not self-identify a disability (M = 0.07), and fewer were represented in the consistent disability self-identification group (M = 0.04). Lastly, for students identifying as Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, more students were represented who did not self-identify a disability (M = 0.03), and fewer were represented in the consistent disability self-identification group (M = 0.02).

Findings: Research Question #3

Multinomial logistic regression was used to investigate which student and institution-related characteristics predict the likelihood of disability self-identification statuses (RQ3). Students who were dependents were less likely to be in the early disability self-identification group compared to those who did not self-identify with a disability (RRR = 0.53). Students from low-income families were more likely to be in the consistent disability group compared to students who did not self-identify a disability (RRR = 1.54). For student GPA during their first year of higher education, there was a statistically significant difference between the early disability self-identification group and students who did not self-identify, as well as a statistically significant difference between early and consistent disability self-identification groups. While statistically significant, the differences in GPA were small (RRR = 1.0). There were minimal differences by race and ethnicity. Compared to White students, American Indian/Alaskan Native students were more likely to be in the early disability group compared to the late disability group and students who did not self-identify a disability.

Some institutional experiences were also significant predictors of disability status. Students living on campus were more likely to be in the late disability self-identification group than the early disability self-identification group. Students with a greater sense of belonging on campus during their first year were less likely to be in the early disability group compared to students who did not self-identify a disability (RRR = 0.66). See Table 3 for full findings.

Table 3

Regression Analyses, Predictors of Disability Self-Identification

Predictor Variables (Compared to reference group: No self-identified disability)	Early Disability Self-Identification		Late Disability Self-Identification		Consistent Disability Self-Identification
	RRR	SE	RRR	SE	RRR	SE
Individual Student Characteristics
Age	0.98	0.02	1.01	0.02	1.03	0.01
Dependency Status	.53*	0.13	1.12	0.51	1.06	0.3
Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latina/o/x	0.8	0.31	1.24	0.45	0.77	0.16
First Generation Status	0.87	0.16	0.86	0.14	0.83	0.14
GPA	1.00*^b	0.00	1.00*	0.00	1.00*^b	0.00
Low Income Status	0.96^b	0.17	1.40	0.28	1.54*^b	0.25
Male	1.00	0.18	0.86	0.14	0.96	0.12
Military Experience	2.7	2.3	1.24	0.68	2.19	1.25
Primary Language Spoken: English	1.03	0.43	1.46	0.4	1.36	0.35
Race: American Indian or Alaska Native	2.14*^a	0.54	.97^a	0.78	1.65	0.51
Race: Asian	0.98	0.33	0.85	0.29	0.66	0.18
Race: Black	0.74	0.13	0.73	0.2	0.77	0.16
Race: Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0.91	0.43	0.97	0.78	0.56	0.23
U.S. Born	1.03	0.32	0.73	0.33	0.99	0.29
Institution-Related Characteristics
Four Year Institution	1.3	0.4	0.79	0.14	0.99	0.22
Full Time Status	0.67	0.16	0.72	0.17	0.74	0.13
Lives On Campus	0.76^a	0.21	1.35^a	0.42	0.87	0.15
Pell Eligibility	1.33	0.3	1.29	0.36	1.15	0.2
Perceived Sense of Belonging	.66*	0.13	0.86	0.13	0.76	0.11
Public Institution	1	0.21	0.86	0.16	0.76	0.11
Intercept	0.35	0.29	0.11	0.12	0.18	0.13

Note. N = 18,990; sample size rounded to the nearest 10 as per IES restrictions; RRR = relative risk ratio.

Indicates statistically significant differences between the early and late disability self-identification groups; ^b indicates statistically significant differences between the early and consistent disability self-identification groups; analyses weighted using wtb000 and bootstrap replicate weights; race (White omitted); RRR = relative risk ratio.

P < .05 indicating statistically significant differences between the group and reference group.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2012-2017 Beginning Postsecondary Student Study (BPS:12/17).

Findings: Research Question #4

Lastly, another multinomial logistic regression was used to investigate how varying disability self-identification statuses account for students’ first to second-year persistence or degree attainment within the higher education environment (RQ4) while controlling for student and institution-related characteristics. There was a statistically significant difference between students with consistent disability self-identification status who either persisted or attained a degree compared to students with consistent disability self-identification status who did not persist or attain a degree. Students who persisted were less likely to be in the consistent self-identification category compared to the no self-identified disability (RRR = 0.63), and students who attained a degree were also less likely to be in the consistent self-identification category compared to no self-identified disability (RRR = 0.55). No statistically significant differences were found for either early or late disability self-identification statuses when comparing persistence and degree attainment with individuals who did not persist or attained a degree. See Table 4.

Table 4

Regression Analyses, Predictors of Persistence or Degree Attainment

Predictor Variables	Persisted		Attained Degree
(Compared to reference group: No degree attained and/or did not persist)	RRR	SE	RRR	SE
Disability Status
Disability: Early Self-Identification	1.03	0.26	0.7	0.18
Disability: Late Self-Identification	0.95	0.25	0.65	0.2
Disability: Consistent Self-Identification	.63*	0.14	.55*	0.13
Individual Student Characteristics
Age	.97^a	0.01	1.01^a	0.01
Dependency Status	1.47	0.29	1.44*	0.24
Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latina/o/x	1.18	0.15	1.14	0.17
First Generation Status	.67*^a	0.07	.94^a	0.13
Male	0.86	0.07	0.85	0.09
GPA	1.00*^a	0	1.01*^a	0
Low Income Status	0.86	0.12	0.82	0.13
Military Experience	1.56	0.49	1.32	0.53
Primary Language Spoken: English	0.86	0.13	0.9	0.17
Race: American Indian or Alaska Native	0.84	0.15	0.77	0.17
Race: Asian	1.80*	0.47	1.23	0.33
Race: Black	0.95	0.13	0.77	0.14
Race: Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	1.08	0.3	0.94	0.3
U.S. Born	1.01	0.25	1.08	0.26
Institution-Related Characteristics
Four Year Institution	2.47*^a	0.28	.31*^a	0.05
Full Time Status	1.92*^a	0.21	3.44*^a	0.41
Lives On Campus	2.35*^a	0.3	.85^a	0.15
Pell Eligibility	.64*^a	0.09	1.07^a	0.22
Perceived Sense of Belonging	1.25	0.15	1.54*	0.18
Public Institution	1.64*^a	0.19	.40*^a	0.06
Intercept	0.34	0.21	0.04	0.02

Note. N = 18,990; sample size rounded to the nearest 10 as per IES restrictions; RRR stands for relative risk ratio and SE stands for standard error.

Indicates statistically significant differences between the groups who attained a degree and those who persisted; analyses weighted using wtb000 and bootstrap replicate weights; race (White omitted); disability (no self-identified disability omitted).

p < .05 indicating statistically significant differences between the group and reference group.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2012-2017 Beginning Postsecondary Student Study (BPS:12/17).

Discussion

Research notes the potential association between one’s disability and one’s successful entry into and experiences within the higher education environment (e.g., Knight et al., 2018). As such, it is important to explore the different disability self-identification statuses to investigate how disabled students and the timing of the self-identification of disability may influence their persistence and degree attainment in the postsecondary setting. This study investigated the prevalence and changes in disability self-identification among undergraduate students during their first 3 years of postsecondary education and identified key differences among self-identification sub-groups. The findings contribute valuable insights into the patterns of disability self-identification and their implications for student outcomes and institutional practices.

Findings from this study revealed that over 16% of undergraduate students enrolled in higher education self-identified as having a disability status at some point during the first 3 years of their postsecondary coursework. Students self-identifying as having a disability tended to be older and less likely to be dependents, enrolled full-time, living on campus, and less likely to perceive a positive sense of belonging within their campus environment. Students self-identifying as having a disability also tended to be more likely to have a lower GPA, have a lower income background, or be Pell-eligible. The results indicate that a majority of students (83.73%) did not self-identify as having a disability at either the base year or first follow-up. However, 9.53% of students identified as having a disability at least once, while 6.74% consistently identified over time. This highlights that many students experience shifts in their self-identification, suggesting dynamic factors influencing how students perceive and report disabilities. The relatively high percentage of late self-identification (5.16%) suggests that some students may become more aware of their disabilities or feel more comfortable disclosing them as they progress through higher education. Conversely, early self-identification (4.37%) followed by non-identification at a later time could reflect improvements in accommodations, a reluctance to continue disclosing, or perceived stigma associated with disability identification.

The study’s findings also revealed significant disparities in demographic and academic characteristics among the self-identification groups. Students who consistently self-identified as having a disability were older, less likely to be dependents, and less likely to live on campus compared to those who never identified. These students also had lower GPAs and a reduced sense of belonging, which raises concerns about systemic barriers faced by students with disabilities. Notably, socioeconomic factors played a significant role: students from low-income families and Pell Grant recipients were overrepresented in the consistent disability self-identification group. These findings emphasize the need for targeted support for low-income students with disabilities, as financial strain and disability-related challenges may compound their difficulties. Racial and ethnic differences in self-identification also emerged, albeit with minimal variation. American Indian/Alaska Native students were more likely to belong to the early self-identification group, highlighting potential cultural or systemic influences on self-identification practices within this population. The underrepresentation of Asian and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students in consistent self-identification groups warrants further investigation, as cultural norms and stigma may play a role in these patterns.

Multinomial logistic regression analysis underscored several predictors of disability self-identification. Students living on campus were more likely to be in the late self-identification group, suggesting that campus environments may facilitate disclosure as students engage with peers and support services. A stronger sense of belonging was associated with reduced likelihood of early self-identification, reinforcing the importance of fostering inclusive campus communities (Edgar et al., 2024; Raver et al., 2018; Vaccaro et al., 2015). These findings suggest that institutional climate and support systems significantly influence students’ willingness to self-identify.

Moreover, disability self-identification status contributed to students’ ability to persist or attain a degree in the first 3 years of postsecondary coursework. In terms of persistence and degree attainment, students who consistently self-identified as having a disability were less likely to persist or graduate compared to those who never identified. This discrepancy may reflect systemic inequities, insufficient accommodations, or the compounded challenges of managing disabilities within the higher education environment (Koch et al., 2018; Kutscher & Tuckwiller, 2019; Newman et al., 2021). Importantly, no significant differences were found for early or late self-identification groups, suggesting that consistent self-identification may indicate more severe or persistent challenges. The findings from this study confirmed previous scholarship (Aquino & Bittinger, 2019); specifically, this research supported previous findings that found disability can be negatively associated with students’ persistence (e.g., Mamiseishvili & Koch, 2011) and degree attainment (e.g., Petcu et al., 2017). Additionally, this research confirms the difference in students’ sense of belonging for students with and without disabilities (Webber et al., 2013). While these findings are specific to self-reported identification of a disability to a national survey—and it cannot be assumed that the students also informally self-identify their disability to others in the campus community or formally disclose their disability with their institution’s disability resource office—it does provide an interesting portrait of the disabled student profile, how—if at all—self-identification changes in students’ lives.

Connection to Theoretical Models

As previously noted, this project was guided by the Interactionist Model of Disability (Evans & Broido, 2011) and the Disability Identity Integration Model (Gill, 1997), as the models address the disabled individual and how the disabled individual participates within their surroundings. For disabled students participating in the higher education environment, various factors in their setting, as well as how they perceive they belong within this setting, may complicate their decision to self-identify a disability. Additionally, their perceptions of this environment and how they perceive they engage within it may create decisions to change the self-identification of a disability over time. Granted, temporary disabilities may allow an individual only to self-identify a disability for a specific period of time; however, research exists on how the environment may dictate how disabled students wish to engage in their postsecondary surroundings (Francis et al., 2019; Nachman, 2023; Nachman & Brown, 2022).

Findings revealed that students who never self-identified a disability were often more likely to complete their postsecondary coursework at full-time status, lived on campus, and possessed a higher sense of belonging at their postsecondary institution when compared to students who self-identified a disability at some point of the first 3 years of their higher education experience. Moreover, students who persisted were less likely to self-identify their disability consistently. Connected to the theoretical models, these findings support the idea that the interaction between individual identity, environmental factors, and perceptions of belonging, may play a critical role in the choice to self-identify a disability within the higher education environment. Contextual factors that shape the experiences of a disabled postsecondary student (i.e., Interactionist Model of Disability) and the process of identity development and self-perception within a student’s postsecondary environment (i.e., Disability Identity Integration Model) can contribute to their ongoing interactions and choices made within the campus setting, thus influencing if a student chooses to self-identify at specific points in their postsecondary education.

Implications for Future Research and Practice

Findings provide several implications for both research and practice. This study was driven by the variables included within the BPS:12/17 dataset. Additional exploration is still needed on disability self-identification trends and how self-identification changes for students during their higher education journey. For example, findings from this paper included that students with a greater sense of belonging on campus during their first year were less likely to be in the early disability group compared to students who did not self-identify with a disability. Research on the directionality of the development of a sense of belonging for disabled students would benefit the field. Greater exploration of why a student may change their self-identification status and if disability status is consistently shared in various environments (e.g., with the institution’s disability resource office, with faculty, etc.) is also needed. Administrators and faculty must be aware that the higher education environment can often be an ableist setting, not providing a supportive and inclusive setting for disabled individuals. A student may not choose to self-identify their disability or, if they do, informally share this information at different times and in different settings and/or disclose it formally with the institution’s disability resource office. Postsecondary institutions can increase inclusivity and decrease ableist practices through increased training related to disability-related policies and support services and more initiatives focused on improving the accessibility and inclusivity of diverse student needs.

Implications for Practice

These findings have several implications for higher education institutions. First, proactive outreach and support for students with disabilities—particularly those from low-income backgrounds—are essential. Institutions should invest in disability services that address both academic and non-academic needs, such as mental health counseling, career guidance, and financial aid advising. Efforts to reduce stigma and encourage self-identification can help ensure that students access accommodations and resources early in their educational journeys.

Improving campus climate and fostering a sense of belonging are also critical. Programs that promote inclusivity, such as disability awareness campaigns, peer mentorship, and faculty training on accommodating diverse learners, can enhance students’ experiences and outcomes. Furthermore, institutions should regularly evaluate the effectiveness of accommodations and ensure that policies support flexible and student-centered approaches to disclosure.

Implications for Future Research

Future research should explore the longitudinal factors that influence changes in disability self-identification. Investigating the role of institutional practices, cultural influences, and individual experiences can shed light on why students choose to identify or not identify their disabilities over time. Additionally, research should examine how intersectional identities—such as race, gender, and socioeconomic status—interact with disability self-identification and influence academic outcomes. Finally, further studies are needed to assess the long-term impact of disability self-identification on post-graduation outcomes, including employment and well-being. By addressing these gaps, researchers and practitioners can develop more effective strategies to support students with disabilities and promote equitable opportunities in higher education and beyond.

Limitations

Limitations to this work occur to the available questions included in this survey. Findings related to disability self-identification were driven by students’ self-reported identification of disability through the BPS: 12/17 dataset. Self-identification of disability within the survey did not mean that students self-identified their disability with campus community members, including faculty, administrators, and/or peers. Self-identifying as having a disability in the BPS: 12/17 dataset also did not mean the students formally disclosed this disability with their institution’s disability resource office or received associated disability support services. Additionally, while disability type was asked for the baseline data collection, it is not included in subsequent survey iterations. Moreover, at baseline, survey participants can only identify one disability.

Conclusion

The aim of this study was: (1) to examine the prevalence and change in disability self-identification status during the first 3 years of postsecondary education; (2) to explore how disability self-identification varies by student characteristics; and (3) to identify if specific disability self-identification statuses account for student first to second-year persistence or degree attainment. A student’s self-identification of a disability can provide the opportunity to obtain accommodations to support their coursework and related academic responsibilities (Kranke et al., 2013). However, students may not self-identify or formally disclose their disability due to stigma related to and obstacles associated with sharing one’s disability in their institutional setting, potentially impacting their overall success within the higher education environment (Grimes et al., 2019). Additional reasons may also be at play when choosing not to self-identify one’s disability, and disclosing a disability to one’s postsecondary institution does not necessarily mean the student will be eligible for or will utilize appropriate disability support services (Cole & Cawthon, 2015). Additionally, while a student is only required to formally self-disclose a disability with their institution’s disability resource office once to be eligible for specific accommodations, students must have ongoing communication with this office to ensure accommodations are implemented in each semester’s coursework.

Aquino and Bittinger (2019) found that students can change their disability self-identification statuses over time; for those who not only self-identify but also formally disclose their disability, the timing of disclosure may impact the use and availability of applicable disability support services. Findings indicate that students can engage in several disability self-identification profiles (e.g., no self-identification, early self-identification, late self-identification, and consistent self-identification) during the first 3 years of their higher education experience. Additionally, specific disability self-identification status can influence persistence and degree attainment. As limited research has explored different disability self-identification statuses within the higher education environment, this work contributes to the field by showcasing the specific student characteristics associated with, and the potential role of self-identifying disability on, student success within the higher education environment.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Katherine C. Aquino

Authors

KATHERINE C. AQUINO, PhD, is an associate professor in the School of Education at St. John’s University, 8000 Utopia Parkway, Queens, NY, (email: czadoaqk@stjohns.edu). Her research focuses on accessibility and disability within the organizational environment and is dedicated to investigating the complexity of disability in the postsecondary setting.

KYLE DEMEO COOK, PhD, is a research assistant professor at Boston University’s Wheelock College of Education and Human Development, 2 Silber Way, Boston MA, (email: kdcook@bu.edu). Her research focuses on education policies from early childhood through higher education.

JOSHUA BITTINGER, PhD, is a Director of Market Research at Gartner, 56 Top Gallant Road Stamford, CT, (email: josh.bittinger@gartner.com). His research has explored disability in higher education.

References

Abreu

Hillier

Frye

Goldstein

(2017). Student experiences utilizing disability support services in a university setting. College Student Journal, 50(3), 323–328.

Akin

Huang

L. M.

(2019). Perceptions of college students with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 32(1), 21–33.

Aquino

K. C.

Alhaddab

T. A.

Kim

(2017). “Does disability matter?”: Students’ satisfaction with college experiences. In Kim

Aquino

K. C.

(Eds.), Disability as diversity in higher education (pp. 47–60). Routledge.

Aquino

K. C.

Bittinger

J. D.

(2019). The self-(un) identification of disability in higher education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 32(1), 5–19.

Aylward

S. M.

(2016). Overcoming barriers to recovery and return to work: towards behavioral and cultural change. In Schultz

I. Z.

Gatchel

R. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of return to work: From research to practice (pp. 119-139). Boston, MA: Springer US.

Baker

K. O.

Boland

Nowik

C. M.

(2012). A campus survey of faculty and student perceptions of persons with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 25(4), 309–329. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1002143

Berzenski

S. R.

(2021). The when and who of graduation and dropout predictors: A moderated hazard analysis. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 23(3), 768–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025119875104

Bialka

C. S.

Morro

Brown

Hannah

(2017). Breaking barriers and building bridges: Understanding how a student organization attends to the social integration of college students with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 30(2), 157–172.

Bills

K. L.

Mills

(2022). Limitations when conducting quantitative disability research. Journal of Research Initiatives, 6(2), 10.

10.

Brown

K. R.

Broido

E. M.

(2019). Engaging students with disabilities. In Harper

Quaye

(Eds.), Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations (pp. 237–255). Routledge.

11.

Bryan

Cooney

Elliott

(2019). 2012/17 beginning postsecondary students longitudinal study (BPS:12/17) data file documentation (NCES 2020-522). U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020522.pdf

12.

Carbado

D. W.

Crenshaw

K. W.

Mays

V. M.

Tomlinson

(2013). Intersectionality: Mapping the movements of a theory. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 10(2), 303–312. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1742058x13000349

13.

Castillo

Y. A.

(2017). Disability and identity development. In Killam

W. K.

Degges-White

(Eds.), College student development: Applying theory to practice on the diverse campus (pp. 161–174). Springer.

14.

Chen

(2012). Institutional characteristics and college student dropout risks: A multilevel event history analysis. Research in Higher Education, 53(5), 487–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-011-9241-4

15.

Cole

E. V.

Cawthon

S. W.

(2015). Self-disclosure decisions of university students with learning disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 28(2), 163–179.

16.

Collins

Azmat

Rentschler

(2019). ‘Bringing everyone on the same journey’: Revisiting inclusion in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 44(8), 1475–1487. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1450852

17.

Cox

B. E.

Nachman

B. R.

(2020). Five principles to improve quantitative research and assessment about college students with disabilities (Practice Brief). Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(3), 241–248.

18.

Dolmage

J. T.

(2017). Academic ableism: Disability and higher education. University of Michigan Press.

19.

Edgar

Pownall

Harris

(2024). Perceptions of university accessibility predicts feelings of belongingness in students with disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 1–12. Epub ahead Print. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2024.2362337

20.

Elias

White

S. W.

(2018). Autism goes to college: Understanding the needs of a student population on the rise. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(3), 732–746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3075-7

21.

Ellis

(2019). A nontraditional conundrum: The dilemma of nontraditional student attrition in higher education. College Student Journal, 53(1), 24–32.

22.

Eng

Matsudaira

(2021). Pell grants and student success: Evidence from the universe of federal aid recipients. Journal of Labor Economics, 39(S2), S413–S454. https://doi.org/10.1086/712556

23.

Espinosa

L. L.

Turk

J. M.

Taylor

Chessman

H. M.

(2019). Race and ethnicity in higher education: A status report. https://www.equityinhighered.org/resources/report-downloads/race-and-ethnicity-in-higher-education-a-status-report/

24.

Evans

N. J.

Broido

E. M.

(2011). Social involvement and identity involvement of students with disabilities. Association for the Study of Higher Education Conference, Charlotte, NC.

25.

Evans

N. J.

Broido

E. M.

Brown

K. R.

Wilke

A. K.

(2017). Disability in higher education: A social justice approach. John Wiley & Sons.

26.

Francis

G. L.

Duke

J. M.

Fujita

Sutton

J. C.

(2019). “It’s a constant fight:” Experiences of college students with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 32(3), 247–262.

27.

Gardner

(2022). Persistence and retention fall 2020 beginning postsecondary student cohort. National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.

28.

Gill

C. J.

(1997). Four types of integration in disability identity development. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 9(1), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.3233/jvr-1997-9106

29.

Goldrick-Rab

(2010). Challenges and opportunities for improving community college student success. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 437–469. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310370163

30.

Gordon

D. T.

Gravel

J. W.

Schifter

L. A.

(2009). A policy reader in universal design for learning. Harvard Education Press.

31.

Grimes

(2020). Student suggestions for improving learning at university for those with learning challenges/disability. In Crimmins

(Ed.), Strategies for supporting inclusion and diversity in the academy (pp. 329–352). Palgrave Macmillan.

32.

Grimes

Southgate

Scevak

Buchanan

(2019). University student perspectives on institutional non-disclosure of disability and learning challenges: Reasons for staying invisible. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(6), 639–655. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1442507

33.

Grimes

Southgate

Scevak

Buchanan

(2020). University student experiences of disability and the influence of stigma on institutional non-disclosure and learning. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1442507

34.

Howard

(2003). An “interactionist” perspective on barriers and bridges to work for disabled people. London: ippr.

35.

Kahu

E. R.

Nelson

(2018). Student engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1344197

36.

Kalkbrenner

M. T.

Jolley

A. L.

Hays

D. G.

(2021). Faculty views on college student mental health: Implications for retention and student success. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 23(3), 636–658. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025119867639

37.

Kimball

E. W.

Wells

R. S.

Ostiguy

B. J.

Manly

C. A.

Lauterbach

A. A.

(2016). Students with disabilities in higher education: A review of the literature and an agenda for future research. In Paulsen

(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 31, pp. 91–156). Springer.

38.

Kirchner

M. J.

(2015). Supporting student veteran transition to college and academic success. Adult Learning, 26(3), 116–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159515583813

39.

Knight

Wessel

R. D.

Markle

(2018). Persistence to graduation for students with disabilities: Implications for performance-based outcomes. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 19(4), 362–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025116632534

40.

Koch

L. C.

W. J.

Mamiseishvili

Lee

Hill

(2018). The effect of learning disabilities, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and psychiatric disabilities on three-year persistence outcomes at four-year higher education institutions. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 48(3), 359–367. https://doi.org/10.3233/jvr-180944

41.

Koch

L. C.

Mamiseishvili

Higgins

(2014). Persistence to degree completion: A profile of students with psychiatric disabilities in higher education. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 40(1), 73–82. https://doi.org/10.3233/jvr-130663

42.

Kranke

Jackson

S. E.

Taylor

D. A.

Anderson-Fye

Floersch

(2013). College student disclosure of non-apparent disabilities to receive classroom accommodations. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 26(1), 35–51.

43.

Kutscher

E. L.

Tuckwiller

E. D.

(2019). Persistence in higher education for students with disabilities: A mixed systematic review. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 12(2), 136. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000088

44.

Lindsay

Cagliostro

Carafa

(2018). A systematic review of workplace disclosure and accommodation requests among youth and young adults with disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 40(25), 2971–2986. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2017.1363824

45.

Linton

(1998). Claiming disability. New York University Press.

46.

Los Santos

Bain

Kupczynski

Mundy

M. A

. (2019). Determining academic success in students with disabilities in higher education. International Journal of Higher Education, 8(2), 16–38. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v8n2p16

47.

Mader

Butrymowicz

(2017). The vast majority of students with disabilities don’t get a college degree (Hetchinger Report). https://hechingerreport.org/vast-majority-students-disabilities-dont-get-college-degree/

48.

Mamiseishvili

Koch

L. C.

(2011). First-to-second-year persistence of students with disabilities in postsecondary institutions in the United States. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 54(2), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034355210382580

49.

Meeks

L. M.

Case

Stergiopoulos

Evans

B. K.

Petersen

K. H.

(2021). Structural barriers to student disability disclosure in US-allopathic medical schools. Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development, 8, Epub ahead Print. https://doi.org/10.1177/23821205211018696

50.

Millea

Wills

Elder

Molina

(2018). What matters in college student success? Determinants of college retention and graduation rates. Education, 138(4), 309–322.

51.

Milsom

Sackett

(2018). Experiences of students with disabilities transitioning from 2-year to 4-year institutions. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 42(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2016.1251352

52.

Moriña

(2017). Inclusive education in higher education: Challenges and opportunities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2016.1254964

53.

Nachman

B. R.

(2023). “The Beacon on Campus”: How an autism-specific community college support program addresses ableism and autism acceptance. College Student Affairs Journal, 41(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1353/csj.2023.0002

54.

Nachman

B. R.

Brown

K. R.

(2022). Crip places: Dismantling disability discourse in the 2-year college literature. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7(4), 634–647. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000443

55.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2021). Graduation rate from first institution attended for first-time, full-time bachelor’s degree-seeking students at 4-year postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity, time to completion, sex, control of institution, and percentage of applications accepted: Selected cohort entry years, 1996 through 2014. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_326.10.asp

56.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2022a). Undergraduate retention and graduation rates. Condition of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/ctr.

57.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2022b). A majority of college students with disabilities do not inform school, new NCES data show. https://nces.ed.gov/whatsnew/press_releases/4_26_2022.asp

58.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2023a). Table 311.10. Number and percentage distribution of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions, by level, disability status, and selected student characteristics: 2019-2020 [Data table]. In Digest of education statistics. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/dt20_311.10.asp

59.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2023b). Number and percentage distribution of degree-granting postsecondary institutions with first-year undergraduates, by control and level of institution and percentage of students with disabilities: Selected academic years, 2010-11 through 2021-22. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_312.80.asp

60.

National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). About BPS. https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/bps/about.asp

61.

Newman

L. A.

Madaus

J. W.

(2015). An analysis of factors related to receipt of accommodations and services by postsecondary students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 36(4), 208–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932515572912

62.

Newman

L. A.

Madaus

J. W.

Lalor

A. R.

Javitz

H. S.

(2019). Support receipt: Effect on postsecondary success of students with learning disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 42(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143418811288

63.

Newman

L. A.

Madaus

J. W.

Lalor

A. R.

Javitz

H. S.

(2021). Effect of accessing supports on higher education persistence of students with disabilities. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 14(3), 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000170 https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000170

64.

O’Keeffe

(2013). A sense of belonging: Improving student retention. College Student Journal, 47(4), 605–613.

65.

Ozelie

Delehoy

Jones

Sykstus

Weil

(2019). Accommodation use by individuals with disabilities in occupational therapy fieldwork. Journal of Occupational Therapy Education, 3(4), 7. https://doi.org/10.26681/jote.2019.030407

66.

Parekh

(2024). Applied quantitative inquiry through a critical disability studies lens. In Young

M. D.

Diem

(Eds.), Handbook of critical education research (pp. 414–429). Routledge.

67.

Parsons

McColl

M. A.

Martin

A. K.

Rynard

D. W.

(2021). Accommodations and academic performance: First-year university students with disabilities. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 51(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.vi0.188985

68.

Pearson

Boskovich

(2019). Problematizing disability disclosure in higher education: Shifting towards a liberating humanizing intersectional framework. Disability Studies Quarterly, 39(1). Epub ahead Print. https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v39i1.6001

69.

Peña

E. V.

(2014). Marginalization of published scholarship on students with disabilities in higher education journals. Journal of College Student Development, 55(1), 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2014.0006

70.

Petcu

S. D.

Van Horn

M. L.

Shogren

K. A.

(2017). Self-determination and the enrollment in and completion of postsecondary education for students with disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 40(4), 225–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143416670135

71.

Price

D. V.

Tovar

(2014). Student engagement and institutional graduation rates: Identifying high-impact educational practices for community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 38(9), 766–782. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2012.719481

72.

Radwin

Wine

Siegel

Bryan

(2013). 2011–12 national postsecondary student aid study (NPSAS:12): Student financial aid estimates for 2011–12 (NCES 2013-165). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013165.pdf

73.

Raver

Murchake

Chalk

H. M.

(2018). Positive disability identity predicts sense of belonging in emerging adults with a disability. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 23(2), 157–165. https://doi.org/10.24839/2325-7342.jn23.2.157

74.

Riddell

Weedon

(2014). Disabled students in higher education: Discourses of disability and the negotiation of identity. International Journal of Educational Research, 63, 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.02.008

75.

Roksa

Kinsley

(2019). The role of family support in facilitating academic success of low-income students. Research in Higher Education, 60(4), 415–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-018-9517-z

76.

Sherwood

K. L.

Kattari

S. K.

(2023). Reducing ableism in social work education through universal design for learning and policy. Journal of Social Work Education, 59(1), 119–132.

77.

Smith

S. A.

Woodhead

Chin-Newman

(2021). Disclosing accommodation needs: Exploring experiences of higher education students with disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(12), 1358–1374. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1610087

78.

Sparkman

Maulding

Roberts

(2012). Non-cognitive predictors of student success in college. College Student Journal, 46(3), 642–652.

79.

StataCorp. 2019. Stata statistical software: Release 16. StataCorp LLC.

80.

Trevino

N. N.

DeFreitas

S. C.

(2014). The relationship between intrinsic motivation and academic achievement for first generation Latino college students. Social Psychology of Education, 17(2), 293–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-013-9245-3

81.

Umbach

P. D.

Tuchmayer

J. B.

Clayton

A. B.

Smith

K. N.

(2019). Transfer student success: Exploring community college, university, and individual predictors. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 43(9), 599–617. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2018.1520658

82.

United States Department of Education. (2017). A transition guide to postsecondary education and employment for students and youth with disabilities. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/idea-files/policy-guidance-transition-guide-postsecondary-education-employment-students-youth-disabilities-august-2020/

83.

Vaccaro

Daly-Cano

Newman

B. M.

(2015). A sense of belonging among college students with disabilities: An emergent theoretical model. Journal of College Student Development, 56(7), 670–686. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2015.0072

84.

Vaccaro

Newman

(2022). Theoretical foundations for sense of belonging in college. In The impact of a sense of belonging in college (pp. 3–20). Routledge.

85.

Webber

K. L.

Krylow

R. B.

Zhang

(2013). Does involvement really matter? Indicators of college student success and satisfaction. Journal of College Student Development, 54(6), 591–611. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2013.0090

86.

Wilke

A. K.

Evans

N. J.

Varland

C. E.

Brown

K. R.

Broido

E. M.

(2019). Access and integration: Perspectives of disabled students living on campus.

A National Look at Shifts in Disability Self-Identification for Students Enrolled in Higher Education

Abstract

Keywords

Literature Review

Student Characteristics

Institution-Related Characteristics

Persistence and Degree Attainment

Theoretical Framework

Methods

Sample

Measures

Self-reported disability status

Individual student characteristics

Institution-related characteristics

Persistence and degree completion

Analysis

Positionality Statement

Results

Findings: Research Question #1

Findings: Research Question #2

Findings: Research Question #3

Findings: Research Question #4

Discussion

Connection to Theoretical Models

Implications for Future Research and Practice

Implications for Practice

Implications for Future Research

Limitations

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Authors

References